Well yes, that is implied by saying the media first reported on it that day.

But I would also say this did not go on prior to 1/20/190 (reagan's inauguration day)

Disagree again.Do you really think that in the ~10 weeks between his election and inauguration he was able to broker a peaceful deal with the Iranis to release the hostages, after negotiations had been going on for over 400 days?

Disagree again.Do you really think that in the ~10 weeks between his election and inauguration he was able to broker a peaceful deal with the Iranis to release the hostages, after negotiations had been going on for over 400 days?

(hostages freed in 1981)

Ah, I put 1980, but 1981 is correct, 80 was the election year, 81 was inauguration.

So you are saying that Reagan made a deal to trade guns and stuff for the hostages?

The Algiers Accords makes no mention of this, and states that it was Carter negotiating with Iran as the reason why, but really it was Reagan's threat that led them to make a deal.

Among its chief provisions are:

The US would not intervene politically or militarily in Iranian internal affairsThe US would remove a freeze on Iranian assets and trade sanctions on IranBoth countries would end litigation between their respective governments and citizens referring them to international arbitration, namely the Iran – United States Claims Tribunal.The US would ensure that US court decisions regarding the transfer of any property of the former Shah would be independent from "sovereign immunity principles" and would be enforcedIranian debts to US institutions would be paid

That is what we were told and what we believed at the time.As the situation unfolded over the years, reality turned out to be something completely different than what we were led to believe.

Are you saying that the governments official story was a lie to cover up a conspiracy that should have led to convictions and jail time in the highest office of the land? Because that just doesn't ever happen according to official stories.

Are you saying that the governments official story was a lie to cover up a conspiracy that should have led to convictions and jail time in the highest office of the land? Because that just doesn't ever happen according to official stories.

I do not remember this, and not going to research anymore looking to verify this, but if you could verify this, I might find it interesting reading.

PS. I was 13 in 1985.

I wouldn't know where to begin.

Are you saying that the governments official story was a lie to cover up a conspiracy that should have led to convictions and jail time in the highest office of the land? Because that just doesn't ever happen according to official stories.

I pointed out in my post regarding this that the connection of motive for bringing guns and drugs into inner city areas to my knowledge is "i dont know". What I do know, is that the government has bureaucracies that have in fact, run both guns and drugs through these inner cities (and even suburban areas.)

Yep. Bin Laden was an operative who later joined with extremists from egypt and those released from jail in Afghan...later forming militant groups funded by CIA agents. To this day, we still fund and then fight these so called "terrorists". It's a mutually beneficial relationship.